3 ms·
Going from domestic ownership of domestic resources to total economic isolationism is a complete non-sequitor, and dangerous misinformation. The IMF has been a
by pphysch 6y ago
Going from domestic ownership of domestic resources to total economic isolationism is a complete non-sequitor, and dangerous misinformation.
The IMF has been around for the better part of a century and has done exceedingly little to address global economic inequality. Maybe it has something to do with it being dominated by the representation of wealthy Western interests.
- zozbot234 6y ago> Maybe it has something to do with it being dominated by the representation of wealthy Western interests. The IMF has its biases and is far from perfectly equitable (and this was quite clear already in their response - or sometimes lack thereof - to the 1990s crises) but expecting it to single-handedly do enough to "address global economic inequality" is just not very fair.
- pphysch 6y agoAbsolutely--my point is that the IMF is not generally interested in the economic welfare of poorer countries, and is abused as a tool for neocolonial interests. Their track record reflects that.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoOn the contrary, the global economy has become hugely more equal over that time. The past century has seen by far the greatest reduction of poverty in history, although that's not to say the IMF is the only one responsible for that.
- pphysch 6y agoBasic poverty/employment metrics and economic inequality are virtually uncorrelated, yet they get shouted from the rooftops by Western elite. Human rights, socioeconomic liberties are far more complex than an easily manipulated number. Increasing income of the poor by 100% means nothing if the rich simultaneously benefit from a 1000% increase. Which is largely the story of Western economics in the last century if not longer.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe poor who get to buy 100% more stuff would disagree with your theory that their good fortune means nothing.
- pphysch 6y agoInflation.